User talk:Lou franklin
Real dialogue Lou, I thought we were going to use this site to create a real dialogue where we come to an understanding and find a way to move forward. All I see your comments doing is driving us further apart. Is that really what we want to spend our time doing? Chadlupkes 13:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC) :This dialog couldn't be more real. It is not my comments that are driving us apart. The idea of allowing two guys named Butch to "marry" is patently absurd. That is what is driving us apart. :Here's how we move forward: homosexuals live together as they do today and enjoy their lives. They don't run around in drag at parades and at highway rest stops. They don't demand that all our laws be changed to suit them. They don't look for ways to obilterate the family unit or indoctrinate our children. They stop looking for ways to offend the millions of people who are deeply insulted by the hijacking of the term "marriage". The irony is that they would be much more accepted if they just lived their lives and got out of our face about it. Lou franklin 02:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC) ::Fundamentally, they can't live their lives without "getting in your face" about it. They can't enjoy their lives when the current laws on the books discriminate against them. They can't walk down the street holding hands like every "accepted" couple can without thinking about it. They can't see each other in the hospital without a living will. Those are the kinds of rights that they want changed, so they can live their lives. They're not looking to obliterate anything, they just want to be left alone. I have never seen any argument that actually explains why Gays and Lesbians pose a threat to anyone. We've learned a lot since the 1950's. Children are not indictrinated into anything. People are what they are, usually from birth. What puts children through hell is not that some people try to force them to be what they are not, but that most people assume that they are something other than what they are. That's from the science community, not some wishful thinking. People shouldn't have to justify who they are or how they feel, they should just be allowed to be themselves. And Gays and Lesbians are not "those people over there", they are our children, or brothers and sisters, or aunts and uncles. It's part of the human condition, and it's not something we can eliminate without destroying the entire species. Chadlupkes 04:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC) :::They can "be themselves" without being married. Getting a living will is easier than getting a marriage license anyway. :::And they certainly can "live their lives without 'getting in your face' about it". And they should. :::Lou franklin 04:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC) ::::A living will barely touches the number of automatic rights that a marriage license grants at the state and federal level. Civil Unions in Vermont solve it for that state, but no further. ::::You still haven't given me any information on why homosexuals are people to be feared or why they threaten anyone else. Can you? Chadlupkes 05:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC) :::::I am not suggesting that homosexuals be feared. I am suggesting that the relationship between two homosexuals is very different from marriage. The definition of marriage should not be changed because there is no reason to change it. To try to force that change on an unwilling public is folly. Lou franklin 12:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC) ::::::Oh, but there is a reason to change it, and that reason is to give homosexuals the posibility to marry. Why deny them that? Just to resist change? Because you seem to have discarded some more fundamental oposition to homosexual marriage. -- Waldsen 03:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC) :::::::That is the reason to change the most fundamental societal institution known to man? So homosexuals can have "the possibility to marry"? Forgive me if I don't find that argument very compelling. :::::::Marriage means the union of one man and one woman. The relationship that two dudes have is very different from the relationship that Ward and June Cleaver have. Why must we pretend that it is exactly the same in every way? Lou franklin 04:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC) ::::::::Well, for centuries one of the "fundamental societal institutions known to" humankind was slavery, or many other systems that have been abolished. Definitions are not set in stone, they are created by us. The resistance to change is understandable, it has accompanied every major reform of society. However, even though it is understandable for you to try to preserve traditional values and institutions, that must not translate into intolerance. Homosexuals have always existed, and they always will. Only recently have they begun the process of being accepted by society. They are here to stay, and it's time to accept them. -- Waldsen 04:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC) :::::::::Do you think it is intellectually honest to compare not being able to "marry" another guy to slavery? Lou franklin 05:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC) ::::::::::As far as perceptions and morality evolving over time, yes, but I think segregation is a better analog. Segregation was racial discrimination, and was justified by claims that forcing separation was alright because the races were treated equally (which we all know was not the case). Better yet, laws against interracial marriage, with the claim that everyone has the same right to marry within their own race, enforcing a status quo of marriages being intra-racial. In the same way, denying same-sex couples the right to marry with the claim that they have the same right as everyone else to marry the opposite sex is an absurd form of gender discrimination. The single biggest difference between these phenomena is that bigotry against the latter is still considered morally acceptable by the majority of our society. --whosawhatsis? 06:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Segregation is not "a better analog". As a result of segregation, people couldn't get a decent education, live in a decent neighborhood, or get a loan. The lack of same-sex "marriage" is nothing like segregation. (And it sure as hell is nothing like slavery!) The single biggest difference between interracial marriage and same-sex "marriage" is that interracial marriage is marriage. Same-sex "marriage", by definition, is not marriage. It is an oxymoron. Marriage means the union of one man and one woman. It is simply not possible for two women to join as husband and wife. Lou franklin 10:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Inminent Lou Franklin: You have repeatedly edited an article which has yet to reach a consensus, and have ignored the reverts to your edits made by other sysops. You are facing an inminent block. Consider yourself warned. -- Waldsen 11:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC) :Please warn those who revert my edits as well. My edits are just as legitimate as anybody else's. Lou franklin 13:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)